Don't get me wrong, I love parametric objects. But as the name implies - "parametric object" is a term straight out of coding - it is a software design concept, not an architectural (or engineering or theater design, etc,) design concept. The danger is that as designers we can be steered and nudged by the assumptions of the code engineer. At what point do the design professions become captives of categories and limitations imposed by engineers with a different set of experiences? CAD should expand our creative capability, not limit it! CAD saves enormous amounts of time and creates great efficiency, but it should not limit those economic incentives to a standardized design palette.
Speaking for myself - I know others might differ - I find the mind-body connection in design works best when I have a pencil or pen in hand, and I have complete freedom to engage with abstract form without the intervention of more mechanical concept containers. On the other hand, I want to go to 3d CAD as soon as possible to lock in precision and to look at things as they truly appear in 3d, as opposed to my hand-mind guesstimates. My ideal parametric object, to get to the point, would be one with a graphical interface. Take a stairs, for example. I really don't want to design from a window with pre-selected options and a tabular, sequential arrangement requiring the input of numbers & checkboxes. What I want is to draw the stairs in plan, then have the parametric take over to generate a 3d object that can then be edited with precision, allowing revision & further input as to tread thickness, tread overhang, construction type, etc. I can do that manually, so I reckon there is no reason a parametric object couldn't be designed which would do the same thing but way faster and with greater power with respect to revisions.
Another example: door and window sills. We shouldn't be limited to the sill assumptions of the VW window object, which are based on windows from the 19th century. The sill could be an extrude, defined graphically by the user and saved as a type, instead of by a sill input window with 7 or 8 confusing parameters. Same with window jambs, which almost never are rectangular prisms these days. I'm sure I could go on, including the limitations of door types, the fact that "overhead" doors are incorrectly modeled not to overlap with the jambs, etc., etc.
You can post now and register later.
If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.
Question
P Retondo
Don't get me wrong, I love parametric objects. But as the name implies - "parametric object" is a term straight out of coding - it is a software design concept, not an architectural (or engineering or theater design, etc,) design concept. The danger is that as designers we can be steered and nudged by the assumptions of the code engineer. At what point do the design professions become captives of categories and limitations imposed by engineers with a different set of experiences? CAD should expand our creative capability, not limit it! CAD saves enormous amounts of time and creates great efficiency, but it should not limit those economic incentives to a standardized design palette.
Speaking for myself - I know others might differ - I find the mind-body connection in design works best when I have a pencil or pen in hand, and I have complete freedom to engage with abstract form without the intervention of more mechanical concept containers. On the other hand, I want to go to 3d CAD as soon as possible to lock in precision and to look at things as they truly appear in 3d, as opposed to my hand-mind guesstimates. My ideal parametric object, to get to the point, would be one with a graphical interface. Take a stairs, for example. I really don't want to design from a window with pre-selected options and a tabular, sequential arrangement requiring the input of numbers & checkboxes. What I want is to draw the stairs in plan, then have the parametric take over to generate a 3d object that can then be edited with precision, allowing revision & further input as to tread thickness, tread overhang, construction type, etc. I can do that manually, so I reckon there is no reason a parametric object couldn't be designed which would do the same thing but way faster and with greater power with respect to revisions.
Another example: door and window sills. We shouldn't be limited to the sill assumptions of the VW window object, which are based on windows from the 19th century. The sill could be an extrude, defined graphically by the user and saved as a type, instead of by a sill input window with 7 or 8 confusing parameters. Same with window jambs, which almost never are rectangular prisms these days. I'm sure I could go on, including the limitations of door types, the fact that "overhead" doors are incorrectly modeled not to overlap with the jambs, etc., etc.
Edited by P RetondoLink to comment
30 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.